YIMBY Progress In California

The state legislature recently passed significant new laws constraining exclusionary zoning, thereby making it easier for property owners to build much-needed new housing on their land.

The state of California recently enacted a number of new laws constraining exclusionary zoning, thereby making it easier for property owners to build new housing on their land. The LA Times summarizes them:

California lawmakers approved legislation on Monday to expand a housing law that has led to the construction of thousands of new homes, despite initial opposition from labor unions and environmental groups.

Senate Bill 423 would extend by a decade a state housing law set to expire in 2026 that lets developers skip much of the bureaucratic process often blamed for blocking construction of multifamily projects, though only in cities that have fallen behind on state-mandated housing goals. The legislation now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto hundreds of bills….

A recent UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation report found that the 2017 law has helped lead to more than 18,000 proposed new units in California, nearly two-thirds of which are considered 100% affordable. It's a small dent in a state that must plan for 2.5 million new homes over the next eight years, with at least 1 million set aside for low- to very low-income households…

The Senate easily approved another major housing proposal on Monday, also by Wiener, that would allow nonprofit colleges and faith organizations such as mosques, synagogues and churches to quickly build affordable housing on their properties. That measure, Senate Bill 4, is expected to free up some 171,000 acres of land for development of affordable housing projects, according to another report from the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

"Enacting SB 4 and 423 will add powerful tools to our arsenal in combating the housing crisis," Wiener said in a statement after the votes. "Californians overwhelmingly want to see these homes built, which is why both bills passed by a wide margin with bipartisan support."

As the article notes, to get SB 423 passed, Sen. Wiener had to agree to increased labor regulations on projects authorized by the law. That, unfortunately, may reduce the amount of construction that occurs, and make it more expensive. Still, the two bills are notable steps in the right direction. Wiener deserves great credit for his longstanding and ongoing efforts to promote YIMBY ("Yes in My Backyard") zoning reform in America's most populous state.

California has some of the most severe zoning restrictions in the nation. Its size and economic importance make reform their especially important. In addition, policies enacted there often have an example effect on other states, particularly liberal "blue" jurisdictions.

At the risk of annoying regular readers who may be tired of me emphasizing it, exclusionary zoning is the most important property rights issue of our time. It stifles economic growth, and  is a major obstacle to opportunity for the poor and disadvantaged. Liberals, conservatives and libertarians all have compelling reasons to oppose it, and push for reform.

These new California laws reinforce recent successes in several other states. Hopefully, the positive trends will continue, though there have also been some setbacks.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Probably a prudent move with the current Reconquista under the reign of Governour General Calvin Maximillion Loathsome

[Roger S]

Now peaceful little California beach towns are being ruined by over-development, causing traffic jams, water shortages, and many other problems. Thanks Democrats and Libertarians! Many of the good people are leaving the state, leaving it to migrants and freeloaders.

[Ben_]

Zoning is no surprise to people who acquire real estate. Don’t pretend it is.

[Life of Brian]

Small point of order: How is a law that allows additional construction of low-income housing only on property owned by nonprofit colleges, churches, etc. not the epitome of NIMBY?

[Purple Martin]

Because said non-profits are not NIMBYS, but YIMBYs. They literally want to build in their own back yards, on their own land, but local exclusionary zoning, promoted by NIMBYs, won't let them.

That's because NIMBY doesn't mean what it says. It's NOT Not in My Back Yard, but Not in YOUR backyard if it's even anywhere near MY backyard.

I'm surprised Brett isn't here with his usual passionate defense of his sacred right to make the government block any of those people from getting near any backyard close to his.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently I was too subtle. There are plenty of places in California other than charitable organizations where developers would love to build more houses. As shown by the pitifully small numbers in the post, this will not make much of a dent at all in the total need, but the politicians and everyone else involved can clap each other on the back for a job well done as they go back to their untouched enclaves.

I'll be measurably more impressed when legislation is "easily approved" to strip the protectionism from those areas as well and allow the state's self-imposed crisis shortage to be truly alleviated.

[Purple Martin]

Without modifiers, "epitome" is not a particularly subtle word. Since the topic is California's continuing efforts to promote YIMBYism, perhaps you might have gone with the more subtle understatement of not exactly the epitome of YIMBY.

I do get your not inaccurate point but, in the context of Ilya's continuing series of posts on California's YIMBY leadership, it might be more accurately understood as an exercise of politics as the art of the possible.

It may not result in huge numbers, but it's loud and could provide examples and reusable models of success. As one of a series of California actions chipping away at government-enforced bounds on private property rights, its potential seems more in principle and precedent than immediate direct impact. But that ain't nuth'in.

[Life of Brian]

your not inaccurate point

Coming from a lawyer (I presume, since I've never heard anyone outside the law feel the need to write double-negative hedges like this), I take that as high praise indeed.

[Purple Martin]

IANAL. That was just a private joke for my own amusement (play on my previous use of not exactly the epitome). Didn't think anyone else would get it. Congratulations, I think.

[Life of Brian]

Well, hey -- that officially breaks my record. I went to law school after a stint in the real world and was seriously floored when we spent a chunk of a class pondering the difference between "right" and "not wrong" or whatever it was.

[Hugh]

Keep on being annoying, Professor Somin, NIMBYs continue to need it drummed into their heads. You are fighting the good fight.

[maxparrish]

I assume Prof. Somin has read or is familiar with William Fischel's books "The Economics of Zoning Laws" and "The Economics of Land Use Regulation". But for those who are not, if you really want to understand the effects and consequences of such laws read at least one of them.

Frankly, I found his first book to be as equally or more compelling than Jane Jacobs legendary "The Life and Death of Great American Cities". Yes, its that good.

[Roger S]

California is still attracting immigrants, migrants, freeloaders, and homeless. The middle class is leaving.